Re: [PEIRCE-L] Plato and Peirce

Edwina, List, You say: "In Plato and others, I understand that knowledge is a priori and the existential world is a weak and possibly corrupt version of this ‘wholeness’. Indeed, this assumption is a basic format of most monotheistic religions!" Not being a Plato scholar, I find the dialogues

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce on Plato

mond Sent: Sunday, November 3, 2024 9:54 PM To: Peirce-L Cc: Jeffrey Brian Downard ; Jon Alan Schmidt Subject: Peirce on Plato List, I very much appreciate Jeff bringing up the topic of the influence of Plato on Peirce. Perhaps, like many Peirce scholars,I've been led (rightly or wron

Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on Peirce and Anselm

hristian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Sat, Nov 2, 2024 at 12:02 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>> wrote: Jon S, Jerry, List, Did Peirce reject Plat

Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on Peirce and Anselm

Jon S, Jerry, List, Did Peirce reject Platonism in favor of scholastic realism regarding the status of abstract objects? That is not how I interpret Peirce's inquiries in metaphysics and cosmology. Rather, I agree with several scholars who take Peirce at his word when he says that the position

Re: [PEIRCE-L] God is an active participant in the semeiotic unfolding of the universe, was, More on Ens necessarium

Hi Jon, Colleagues You say: “As I already said in another thread, I find it highly implausible that there could be a pronounced difference between Peirce's personal views and his philosophical system.” Peirce says his approach to philosophy is both (1) critical and (2) commonsense. He explain

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Panentheism: A framework for reconciling diverse perspectives on God, was, A logical problem, was: Cosmic Christi Theology, was, A Scientific Religion, was, Semiosic Synechism: A Peirce

Colleagues, If I step back from the philosophical inquiries and think about questions concerning the nature of the divine in a more commonsense manner, the following question comes to mind. Normally, I think minds, thoughts and representations need—in some sense—to be embodied to have the power

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Verbal Definitions vs. Real Definitions (was A Scientific Religion)

rbal definition" and "real definition"? Regards, Jon On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 10:31 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: Jon S, List, Again. What types of definitions do you take him to be providing? For example, is Peirce providing nominal (i.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Scientific Religion, was, Semiosic Synechism: A Peircean Argumentation

latter is assigned a peculiar definition. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Scientific Religion, was, Semiosic Synechism: A Peircean Argumentation

Hi Jon S, List, For the sake of interpreting what Peirce is doing in the first section of “A Neglected Argument”, what types of definitions do you take him to be providing? For example, is Peirce providing nominal (i.e., verbal) definitions or real definitions? He puts the following words int

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Scientific Religion, was, Semiosic Synechism: A Peircean Argumentation

Jon S, Gary R, Gary F, Edwina, List, Consider the following remarks about pragmaticism in relation to Humanism, theism, etc. “There are certain questions commonly reckoned as metaphysical, and which certainly are so, if by metaphysics we mean ontology, which as soon as pragmatism is once since

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semiosic Synechism: A Peircean Argumentation

Jon, Gary F, List, Jon says: “If (classical) theism is true, then God transcends our existing universe”. Let me try this on for size: if Peirce’s metaphysical realism is true, then the laws of nature are real things that transcend the existing universe. And this too: If Peirce’s metaphysical

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semiosic Synechism: A Peircean Argumentation

sopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 1:29 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: Hi Jon, List, Yo

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretation of Peirce on Aesthetics and the Divine

her, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 1:20 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: Hello Edwina, Time is short on my

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semiosic Synechism: A Peircean Argumentation

Hello, Just a quick remark. Edwina says: 2] The claim that ‘God is outside space and that space is infinite - seems to me at least, to be illogical. If a force/whatever, has a location outside [or inside], then the spatial domain has perimeters and is not, by definition, infinite. Let’s foc

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretation of Peirce on Aesthetics and the Divine

, September 9, 2024 1:22 PM To: Jeffrey Brian Downard Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt ; Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretation of Peirce on Aesthetics and the Divine Jeff, List Thanks for your post.. First -as with all discussions, terms need definitions, and I would ask you to define what you

[PEIRCE-L] Interpretation of Peirce on Aesthetics and the Divine

witter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 5:26 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: Hello Edwina, Jon S, Gary R, Gary F, all, Let me start by saying that I’ve not engaged much with the secondary literature on Peirce’s views concerning religion. It i

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Speculative Grammar (was Semiosic Synechism: A Peircean Argumentation)

Hello Edwina, Jon S, Gary R, Gary F, all, Let me start by saying that I’ve not engaged much with the secondary literature on Peirce’s views concerning religion. It is on my to-do list, but I’ve not spent the time needed to understand the debates among scholars. Having said that, my approach to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Ens necessarium

Jon, Gary, All, Jon, you say “Again, self-organization is not self-creation. Nothing comes from nothing.” I see Pierce talking about nothingness, and I am wondering how his remarks compare. On your view, does it follow from “Nothing comes from nothing” that “from nothingness, it is not possibl

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Zoom lecture on the CSP's role in philosophy of science (U Pitt)

Hello Michael and John, Nice to hear from you on the List, Michael. I agree with your suggestions in (1) and (2). How might we further draw out some of Peirce’s suggestions for explaining the evolution of cooperation in a wide variety of systems, ranging from ecosystems to human economic and p

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Problems in mixing quantifiers with modal logic (was Delta Existential Graphs

Hello John, Jon, List, Peirce examines both first and second intentional logics. The distinction appears to be similar, in some respects, to the contemporary distinction between first and second order logics. Here, for instance, is an SEP entry on higher order logics: https://seop.illc.uva.nl

[PEIRCE-L] Law of Mind and Origins of Order in the Cosmos

Hello, Peirce offers strategies for framing questions and fruitful hypotheses in metaphysics about the origins of order in the cosmos. I've seen reconstructions of his account by a number of interpreters, including Andrew Reynolds in Peirce's Scientific Metaphysics. Some Peirce scholars, includ

[PEIRCE-L] Atkins monograph

Hi John, The Atkins monograph is not yet available from OUP. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/peirce-on-inference-9780197689066?cc=us&lang=en&; It is scheduled to ship in July. I'd be interested in discussing the work when it does appear in print. Let me know if you are interested. --Je

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce - Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).

Hello John, Mary, all, I'd be happy to compare notes on Peirce's, Kant's, Leibniz's arguments and remarks about the intelligibility of a "thing in itself." As I've suggested earlier, it is helpful to read Kant's claims in light of his attempt to respond to Leibniz. Similarly, it is helpful to r

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce - Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).

Hi Jon, Which claim about the "thing in itself" in Kant do you take to be mistaken? Can you put it in clear terms and tell me where he makes the claim? I'd be interested in knowing where you think he goes wrong in more precise terms. As I've suggested before, one of Kant's main aims in the disc

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce - Again).

Hi Jack, list, Before attributing views to Kant with respect to the notion of a thing in itself or the conception of a noumenon, you might start with some passages from Kant's first Critique where he actually employs such notions and conceptions. Or, at least refer us to the sections you have i

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A question for pragmatists

/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 4:10 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>> wrote: Gary F., Jon S, all, I take Peirce's argument for the triad of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A question for pragmatists

Gary F., Jon S, all, I take Peirce's argument for the triad of ideals—aesthetic, ethical and logical--to start with an analysis of our ordinary conception of having an end and then asking: what is necessary for an end to be ultimate? In his discussion of the topological character of the relati

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Basis of Synechism in Phaneroscopy

Hello Jon S, Gary R and Gary F, all, I want to think the three of you for giving presentations at the 10-minute discussion on Zoom. I found each of the presentations and following discussion helpful. I'd like to respond to some of the points Gary F makes in his discussion of "Nonlinear Semio

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's "Proof" of Pragmatism

Hi Jon, List, Thank you for sharing your questions about Peirce's proof of pragmatism. The focus of your inquiries is on the interpretation of Peirce's attempt to offer a proof of pragmatism around 1908. I tend to think the later writings often build on the earlier. As such, I wonder what the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Signs, Types, and Tokens

Gary F, Jon AS, Gary R, Phyllis, et al. Sometimes, such as when I'm done thinking about a philosophical question, I look at the time and wonder where it went. I didn't write anything down, and I didn't talk to anyone about it. Gary F's question takes the following form: are my unuttered thoug

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Signs, Types, and Tokens

Gary F, JAS, List, The points made about types and tokens are interesting. Consider an inductive argument. 1. Socrates is a Greek philosopher, and he died at age 71. 2. Plato is a Greek philosopher, and he died at age 80. 3. Aristotle is a Greek philosopher, and he died at age 62.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pure math & phenomenology (was Slip & Slide

much hope of learning one from another. --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 ________ From: Jerry Rhee Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 12:29:50 PM To: Jeffrey Brian Downard Cc: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEI

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pure math & phenomenology (was Slip & Slide

Hi Jon, Gary F, John Sowa, List, Jon says: "I agree with the responses this morning by both Gary F. and Jeff." Note that I was agreeing with John Sowa and Richard Smyth about the main "business" of the Peircean phenomenologist when it comes to the practice of applying phenomenology to questi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pure math & phenomenology

Gary F, John S, List It is worth noting that Richard Smyth, who is a respected Peirce scholar, makes the same point in his monograph Reading Peirce Reading that John S has raised. In fact, he points out that the distinction between the phenomenological and nomological phases of inquiry was fai

Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne : Slip & Slide 34

tinuity between the two. I’m not sure whether I’m answering your question or explaining why I don’t see a clear answer to it. But that’s all I can say in response to it. Gary f. From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of Jeffrey Brian Downard Sent: 27-Aug-21 18:45 Cc: 'Peirce-L' Subje

Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne : Slip & Slide 34

Gary F, Helmut, John, Jon, List, Some have suggested that the aim of phenomenology is to provide an analysis and account of human consciousness. I have a question about the focus on consciousness. The business of the phenomenology, I believe, is to provide the resources and techniques needed

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Multi-value logic

Jon, List, On its face, the claim that "Every aspect of EG (as well as GrIn and SG) is triadic" sounds like an overgeneralization. Insofar as an argument is represented in the system, it has the character of a thoroughly genuine triadic relation. Having said that, some of the signs scribed o

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Representing Abduction in the EG

-Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: John F. Sowa Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 9:18:56 PM To: Jeffrey Brian Downard Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Representing Abdu

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Representing Abduction in the EG

versity (o) 928 523-8354 From: John F. Sowa Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 8:27:37 PM To: Jeffrey Brian Downard Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Representing Abduction in the EG Jeff, All versions of logic, by Peirce and by any logicians before o

[PEIRCE-L] Representing Abduction in the EG

Hi Jon, It is an interesting question: how might one represent abductive inferences in the EG? You've probably seen this recent article by Pietarinen and Bellucci. Bellucci, Francesco, and Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. "Icons, interrogations, and graphs: On Peirce's integrated notion of abduction.

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Reading Peirce Reading Others

du/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2016-09/msg00179.html>, "I assume that he [Peirce] means exactly what he says and says exactly what he means, until I have sufficient reason to abandon that working assumption." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philo

[PEIRCE-L] Reading Peirce Reading Others

"I assume that he [Peirce] means exactly what he says and says exactly what he means, until I have sufficient reason to abandon that working assumption." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/Jon

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Philosophy of Existential Graphs (was Peirce's best and final version of EGs)

of the relationship between principles and laws, or suggesting that it is how we should distinguish them? If the former, what specific passages in Peirce's writings do you interpret as endorsing such a view? Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosophe

[PEIRCE-L] Philosophy of Existential Graphs (was Peirce's best and final version of EGs)

Jon Schmidt, List, I'd like to take up the distinction between principles and laws. Jon S: "In other words, Peirce denies that excluded middle is an absolutely exceptionless law (NEM 4:xiii, no date), which is presumably why he typically prefers to call it a principle instead." On its face

Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Philosophy of Existential Graphs (was Peirce's best and final version of EGs)

Jon Schmidt, John Sowa, List, It might be helpful to make a clearer distinction between what is advantageous for the purposes of developing the EGs as a formal system of mathematical logic and what is advantageous for the purposes of developing theories of philosophical logic. For the sake o

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Topical Continuum

Jon Schmidt, List, Congratulations on the publication of the paper. Here are some initial questions. 1. In the opening pages of his discussion of continuity in the last Cambridge Conferences lecture published in Reasoning and the Logic of Things, Peirce distinguishes between the task of a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Interpretation

n this track on the List, I try to clarify what I'm doing by spelling out where my methods or results differ from Peirce's. Yours, Jeff D On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:43 AM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: Jon S, List, The illustration I offer can be

Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Interpretation

hern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 ________ From: Jeffrey Brian Downard Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 8:20:10 PM To: Jon Alan Schmidt Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Interpretation Jon S, List How does the method you are employing compare to the methods articulated in &q

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The sciences: mathematical and classificatory

John S, Robert, Jon A, List, Here are a few questions about the philosophical import of the mathematics of category theory. I'm hoping that you might have some ideas that would shed some light on the matter. 1. Category theory represents a class of objects as nodes and then connections a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Destinate Interpretant and Predestinate Opinion (was To put an end ...)

ociate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Edwina Taborsky Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 2:21 PM To: Jeffrey Brian Downard Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Destinate Interpretant and Predestinate Opini

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The plethora of Interpretants

Jon, List, How does your definition of the immediate interpretant compare to what Peirce says in the following passage: "The Immediate Interpretant consists in the Quality of the Impression that a sign is fit to produce, not to any actual reaction"? (CP 8.315) JAS: The immediate interpreta

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Destinate Interpretant and Predestinate Opinion (was To put an end ...)

hern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Helmut Raulien Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 10:34 AM To: tabor...@primus.ca Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; Jeffrey Brian Downard Subject: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Destinate Interpretant and Predestinate Opinion (was To put an end .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Destinate Interpretant and Predestinate Opinion (was To put an end ...)

Robert, Jon, List, It is clear that Monod and Peirce are offering competing sets of metaphysical hypotheses. They seem to agree that biological evolution proceeds, in some sense, from random variations. From this common starting point, the positions differ on a number of points, including the

Fw: [PEIRCE-L] The Reality of Time

r publication in Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society.) The first was regularity, which I now prefer to call rationality--every portion conforms to one general law or Idea, which is the final cause by which the ontologically prior whole calls out its parts (cf. CP 7.535; 1899 and CP

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Reality of Time

__ From: Dan Everett Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 8:00 AM To: Jeffrey Brian Downard Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Reality of Time This is a fascinating topic and discussion. The syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and anthropology of temporal reference in natural

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Reality of Time

-8354 From: Jeffrey Brian Downard Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 11:37:06 PM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Reality of Time Hello Jon, List, At the beginning of the post, you note that Peirce engaged in "mathematical, phenomenological, semeiotic, and metaphysical&

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Reality of Time

Hello Jon, List, At the beginning of the post, you note that Peirce engaged in "mathematical, phenomenological, semeiotic, and metaphysical" inquiries concerning time. Do you have any suggestions about how we might tease out the different threads? Each seems to involve somewhat different metho

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce Society Newsletter 3:2

Hi Ben, Thanks for sharing those two resources. I'm eager to take a look myself. --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Ben Udell Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2019 9:24:13 AM To: pe

[PEIRCE-L] Phenomenological categories

of experience. --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 ____________ From: Terry Moore Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 12:55:17 PM To: Jeffrey Brian Downard Subject: Fwd: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [ontolog-forum] Re

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: "all exact thought is mathematical thought"

Jon A, Jon S, List, One can describe the arena of mathematical inquiry as a "contingent bubble world" that lives within its "own frame of reference". Doing so would not, however, explain what makes mathematical thought exact. It would be more precise, I think, to stress the idea that mathemati

Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Vargas on Continuity

ociate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 ____________ From: Jeffrey Brian Downard Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 11:18 PM To: Jon Alan Schmidt Subject: Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Vargas on Continuity Hi Jon, I don't remember the detai

Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Vargas on Continuity

ties. --Jeff On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 8:09 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: Jon, List, Generally speaking, one way to get clearer about a conception is to draw a contrast to its opposite. As such, we stand to learn something about continuity by closely examin

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Intuitionistic Existential Graphs (IEGs)

Hi Jon S, John S, List, Arnold Oostra gave presentations in English on his work on intuitionistic logics and the EG at the Peirce Centennial Congress in 2014 and on related themes at the later meeting on Peirce's work on mathematics in Bogota (organized by Fernando Zalamea). At the latter, he

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's work in progress

John S, List, John: Re Cosmology: Peirce learned mathematics, physics, and astronomy at his father's knee. Until he lost his position at USCGS and JHU, his knowledge of those fields was at the forefront of research, and that research is reflected in his cosmology. No one knows what he might

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

athe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:26 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:jeffre

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:26 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>>

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

smic origin, pre-Big Bang (if one subscribes to that view) While in Peirce's view, the earliest cosmos took form "before time was." Best, Gary R Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York On Thu, Aug

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

CP 6.203, RLT 261; 1898) Rather than "a vague infinity of dimensions," there are no distinct dimensions--no definite dimensions--no discrete dimensions at all in the original continuum that is fundamental to the constitution of being. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Pr

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

lt;http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 6:35 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: Gary R., Jon S, Edwina, John S, List, Keeping in mind the distinction that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

mensions would affect Jeff’s idea about the reduction of dimensions over time.) I haven’t read the Quanta article yet and have a busy weekend ahead so this very rough sketch is all I can offer for awhile. Gary f. From: Jeffrey Brian Downard Sent: 23-Aug-19 12:46 To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Gary R., Jon S, Edwina, John S, List, Keeping in mind the distinction that Peirce makes between metaphysical cosmology and physical cosmology, let me again stress a point made earlier. Instead of assuming that, at any point in his inquiries, Peirce typically affirmed one answer to each of the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Jon S, Gary F, John S, List, Peirce engages in inquiries that fall under the headings "cosmological metaphysics" and "cosmological physics." (see, for example, CP 6.213, As we know, he is drawing on a number of resources including mathematics, phenomenology and semiotics for the sake of direc

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is Synechism Necessary? (was Lecture by Terrence Deacon)

eur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 6:37 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: Jon, List, I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is Synechism Necessary? (was Lecture by Terrence Deacon)

Jon, List, In the opening remarks of the last lecture in RLT, Peirce frames three questions. Let me restate them in my own words. 1. What conception of continuity is needed for mathematics? 2. What conception of continuity is needed for a philosophical theory of critical logic and the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited

elow). By the way, according to Cornelis de Waal (2014), that passage is an excerpt from R 637, written in October 1909. Gary f. From: Jeffrey Brian Downard Sent: 20-May-19 23:58 To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited Jon S, Gary F, John S, Edwina

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited

.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:58 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: Jon S, Gary F, John S, Edwina, Gary R, List I'd like to raise some questions about

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited

Jon S, Gary F, John S, Edwina, Gary R, List I'd like to raise some questions about the assertion that every sign has an object that is separate, in some sense, from that sign. The basis of the claim that the object must be separate from the sign, I am supposing, is that the object determines t

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Methodeutic for resolving quotation wars (was Continuity...

Jon S, Edwina, List, I accept the claim that the sign is the first correlate of a genuinely triadic relation with respect to its object and interpretant. Having said that, some signs have the character of necessitants. These include legisigns, symbols, arguments. For signs that have these thre

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric, was, [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited

Gary R, List, I recommend adding Emerson's essay "The Poet" to your list of resources on trinitarianism. On a personal note, I was once asked to give a few presentations to a Unitarian Universalist congregation when they were without a pastor. I offered to give one on a defense of trinitaria

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited

John S, Gary F, Jon S, Edwina, Gary R, List, In addition to the suggestions John Sowa has offered for profitably reading textual fragments that pertain to difficult philosophical questions--such as questions about the common sense belief in God--I would add the following. As we all know, Peir

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited

onAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 10:05 AM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: Jon S, Gary R, all, For those who insist that the "semiotic" argument that God is transcenden

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited

Jon S, Gary R, all, For those who insist that the "semiotic" argument that God is transcendent and not immanent is a good argument (i.e., that the universe is a vast sign, and every sign must have an object distinct from itself), let me ask: what conception of immanence and transcendence do y

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited

om/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: Jon S, List, Consider the following sort of sign: Imagine that upon the soil of a country, that has a single boundary line … [and on

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited

Jon S, List, Consider the following sort of sign: Imagine that upon the soil of a country, that has a single boundary line … [and on the ground] there lies a map of that same country. This map may distort the different provinces of the country to any extent. But I shall suppose that it repre

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic and Tetradic relations

man www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 10:22 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: Jon S, List, JD: In the Prolegomena, Peir

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited

Gary F, Jon S, John S, List, GF: the set of “hypotheses” you've presented here seem quite compatible with Peirce's ideas about the ‘development of concrete reasonableness.’ But i put the quote marks around “hypotheses” because i regard that idea not as a testable hypothesis but as a regulativ

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited

anSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:42 AM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: Gary F, Jon S, List, For the sake of clarifying the questions, consider a few periods f

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited

Gary F, Jon S, List, For the sake of clarifying the questions, consider a few periods from the history of the universe. Here is an abbreviated timeline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe Chronology of the universe

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic and Tetradic relations

ed on the notion of relations of composition and transformation that hold between areas on a sheet of assertion that is, itself, continuous. Various discontinuities are introduced onto the sheet to represent what is existing and discrete as individuals, but the continuity of this type of logical sys

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic and Tetradic relations

Jon S, If I understand you correctly, then it appears that we are guided--at least in part--by different purposes. I am trying to interpret Peirce's account triadic relations and square it with what he says about tetradic and higher ordered relations. You, on the other hand, don't accept som

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic and Tetradic relations

John S, Jon S, List, JohnS: To clarify these issues, search CP for every occurrence of "A gives B". Jeff D: Here is one passage that is particularly germane to the question at hand. When Peirce claims that giving is a genuinely triadic relation, I take note of the fact that in the "Logic of M

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic and Tetradic relations

made a new relation. Yours, Jeff <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:44 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: Jon S., List, My strategy for interpreting these passages is to take Peirce at his word when he refers to the tr

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic and Tetradic relations

n of giving and exchanging? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic and Tetradic relations

List, In a draft of a 1905 letter to Lady Welby, Peirce analyzes the tetradic relationship of A gives up B to C in exchange for D (Semiotic and Significs, 190). I am interested in his remarks about the exchange of goods for the sake of better understanding his account of the relations that hol

Re: [PEIRCE-L] opportunities for transcribing Peirce?

Hello Orin, Terry Moore and I have spearheaded the SPIN project, which has the aim of using online tools to support collaborative efforts to transcribe Peirce's manuscripts into a searchable form. Here is a link to the site: https://fromthepage.com/collection/show?collection_id=16 C. S. Pe

[PEIRCE-L] Continuity: explaining time, space and other sorts of laws

Hello Jon S, List, Let me start here: "As Peirce recognized, despite not having the benefit of Einstein's insights, Zeno's famous paradoxes are dissolved by understanding continuous motion through space-time as a more fundamental reality than discrete positions in space and/or moments in tim

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Symbols and Syntax (was Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols)

Dan, List, I, for one, don't share your view that Peirce missed the boat on this one. In making the assertion, are you claiming that modern mathematical logic demonstrates that relations that might appear to be genuinely triadic--- such as giving, or mediating or thinking--can be entirely redu

[PEIRCE-L] Genuinely triadic relations, laws and symbols

Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:40 AM Jeffrey Bria

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce Monument

Hello Jon S, List, Does the sign itself constitute a triadic relationship? You say, No. It is the first correlate of a triadic relation, but it is not itself a triadic relation. Let me adopt the other side of the argument and see what points I can marshall in its favor. First, I'd like to po

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Logical Analysis of Signs (was Phaneroscopy and logic)

Jon S, List, I, too, am interested in the way the EGs, as a mathematical tool, might help us clarify the nature of propositions and inferences and the roles that they serve in processes of inquiry. In order to apply such mathematical tools to questions in any part of a semiotic theory (conceiv

  1   2   3   4   5   >